EDITORIAL: Impeach judge for gay marriage ruling? Get a grasp

Newly married Jim Obergefell and John Arthur show their rings. They've sued in federal court to be recognized by Ohio as spouses.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that granted federal recognition to same-sex marriages has created a confusing landscape in the U.S., where something as basic as the right to marry means different things in different states. It's a period in our history that calls for patience, as citizens, legislatures and the courts work through the conflicts. It also requires judges and lawmakers to have a basic grasp of how our laws work.

Unfortunately Ohio Rep. John Becker displayed neither patience nor a grasp of the law when he asked last week for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black. The judge's offense, according to Becker: he violated Ohio's ban on same-sex marriages when he ruled in July in favor of a gay couple that had married in Maryland, where their marriage is legal. One of the men is terminally ill and Black issued a temporary order allowing him to be listed as married on his death certificate, with his husband listed as his surviving spouse. The Enquirer did an editorial and accompanying video on their wedding that led to international attention.

The judge's order, which is in effect until the end of the year, was extended Wednesday to all same-sex couples in Ohio who have legally wed out of state.

It's an area of the law that's changing rapidly, and Black is one of many judges who have had to decide cases where the law and civil rights collide. In 2004, Ohio voters approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Even as other states-now 13 in all-approved such marriages, Ohio's ban remains intact.

Black ruled that because Ohio recognizes other marriages that it doesn't allow to be performed in the state, such as those between first cousins or minors, it must also recognize same-sex marriages.

Opponents are free to disagree, and they have Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine fighting on their behalf to defend Ohio law. The case will get a full hearing at some point, and it stands a chance of reaching the U.S. Supreme Court eventually. We need to give our legal system time to work the way it's intended to.

But Becker doesn't want to do that. Because he disagrees with Black's decision, he wants him to lose his job. This is why federal judges are given lifetime appointments: so they have the freedom to interpret the law without concern for political repercussions. Becker accuses Black of "malfeasance and abuse of power." This accusation is false; Black is doing exactly what we ask judges to do.

Becker is also wrong when he says Black's decision violated Ohio's right to determine its own laws. Black ruled that Ohio had to respect the laws of the states where gay couples marry by recognizing their marriages, a concept that's spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.

We've always looked to the judiciary to protect the civil rights of minorities against the wishes and even the votes of the majority. History is littered with cases of discrimination that majorities of Americans voted to uphold-slavery, bans on mixed-race marriages, and instances in which the rights of women were violated. Yet legal opinions and public opinion often work together to resolve contentious issues.

For an instructive example, we need to look no farther than Cincinnati's Issue 3. Voters approved the measure in 1993 to prevent the city from enacting any laws protecting the rights of gays and lesbians. U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Spiegel found it unconstitutional the next year, an appeals court later reversed his decision, and the law was finally upheld in 1998 when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear it.

In the meantime, though, Cincinnati voters themselves were reconsidering the issue, and they voted in 2004 to repeal the amendment. It took 11 years, three levels of federal courts, countless attorneys and a city full of voters, but the conflict managed to resolve itself without any threats of impeachment or other interference in the process.

Becker should have faith in the American legal system. It can be agonizingly slow and doesn't always deliver the result every citizen wants. But our founders set it up the way they did for good reasons, and Becker ought to trust it enough to let it do its work.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

Most Commented

More Headlines

Most Viewed

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

EDITORIAL: Impeach judge for gay marriage ruling? Get a grasp

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in June that granted federal recognition to same-sex marriages has created a confusing landscape in the U.S., where something as basic as the right to marry means